Human beings are certainly an intelligent species. Our scientific prowesses has allowed us to accomplish amazing feats. We, for example, have split the atom and harnessed the incredible power contained therein... truly amazing.

At the same time, trapped in our slowly evolving species is unbelievable stupidity. We use our intelligence for destroying each other and ourselves. That fantastic energy that we get when we split the atom is not really completely contained... not actually under our control, completely.

Our lack of ability demonstrates itself in locations such as Chernobyl and Fukushima. As things stand currently, ‘Fukushima radiation’ will pour into the Pacific Ocean for the rest of time. We can only imagine the long term consequences of this process.

​Most nuclear plants are for profit enterprises - privately owned. They are never held responsible for their highly lethal nuclear leakage, mistakes, meltdowns, etc. Outrageously, they keep all of the profits from their nuclear business activities, but there are no consequences for the harm they cause humans or the planet. At risk is our water, our air, our food, and life itself on planet Earth.

Worldwide, many nuclear accidents have occurred since the Chernobyl disaster in 1986. Two thirds of these mishaps occurred in the US. The French Atomic Energy Commission has concluded that technical innovation cannot eliminate the risk of human errors in nuclear plant operation.

Globally, there have been at least 99 (civilian and military) recorded nuclear power plant accidents from 1952 to 2009.

An interdisciplinary team from MIT has estimated that given the expected growth of nuclear power from 2005–2055, at least four serious nuclear power accidents would be expected in that period. And, this is our 'peace-time' usage of nuclear fission.

We engage our 'enemies' with the concept that we will annihilate them with atomic bombs. That we ourselves will also be extinguished has created acceptable international policy, ​mutually assured destruction (MAD is the perfect acronym) wherein we eliminate each other leaving the planet to evolve without us humans

The Cold War was at its height in the fifties and sixties when the bombs were much smaller than they are today. Even then, the 'fear' was that we would eliminate ourselves through a nuclear exchange of small bombs, and today with much larger bombs and many more of them, the 'fear' is at least as great.

A nuclear war between Russia and the United States would be the worst catastrophe in the history of humanity. It is impossible for the average person to comprehend the scope of that tragedy. Likely, there would be survivors of the immediate nuclear exchange. Ultimately, the destruction to our systems of civilization would be the end of our global food supply and the following civilian riots would add to the waste. Survival may not be best.

We express concerns about the mentality of those persons ​with fingers on the button. The real concerns should apply to all of us who contribute to the 'button' being there to be pushed. Our ideas of civilization are at stake with our gambles at 'diplomacy' and 'first strike' which dominate our thinking.

​if Pakistan and India start dropping bombs on each other, the repercussions will be on a global scale whether other countries drop bombs or not.

With all of our brilliance, we have not thought this through very well. When atomic energy is balanced with the mental weakness of people (greed as one example), all of our efforts should be about abandoning the bomb.

And when we Americans run around the planet flexing our military muscle, we increase chances of MAD becoming a reality... and that's the truth !!!

those who survive those 'first strikes' may envy the dead

The Nuclear Danger Posed by Trump Has Only Grown

What you can do about an erratic commander-in-chief controlling a vast and vulnerable arsenal of mass destruction.

As if you didn’t have other things to worry about, add “think about the threat of nuclear war” to your to-do list.

The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists says we are, metaphorically speaking, only two and half minutes away from nuclear doomsday, the Bulletin's closest Armageddon estimate since the early 1980s. Former Defense Secretary William Perry says he is "terrified." Novelist Philip Roth says what is most frightening about President Trump “is that he makes any and everything possible, including, of course, the nuclear catastrophe."

The hell of our predicament, experts say, is that Trump’s emotional instability is only part of the problem. The 45th president sits atop a command and control system that is already aging, prone to accidents and vulnerable to hacking, according to Eric Schlosser, author of Command and Control, a gripping history of the U.S. nuclear complex.

And the American political economy offers vast incentives to those who want to expand and modernize America’s nuclear arsenal, instead of reducing and restraining it, as policymakers across the political spectrum recommend.

Before the 2016 election, Schlosser said the notion of Trump “with the launch codes, capable of devastating cities and countries, is extraordinary. It’s like the plot out of a science-fiction film."Now that film has become reality and the opening scenes are already scary.

Cold War to Gold WarThe early hopes that Trump’s admiration for Russian president Vladimir Putin might translate into a new nuclear arms agreement went a-glimmering on February 24, when Trump told Reuters he thought the existing U.S. Russia accord, known as New START, was "one-sided."

In fact, the New START treaty limits both countries to the same number of deployed nuclear warheads—1,550—by February 2018. In any case, Gen. James Cartwright, former vice chair of Joint Chiefs of Staff, says that the United States could reduce its nuclear arsenal by a third without harm to U.S. security.

“Mr. Trump’s comments suggest, once again, that he is ill-informed about nuclear weapons and has a poor understanding of the unique dangers of nuclear weapons,” said Daryl Kimball, director of the Arms Control Association in Washington.

“Discarding New START would irresponsibly free Russia of any limits on its strategic nuclear arsenal and would terminate the inspections that provide the United States with significant additional transparency about Russian strategic nuclear forces,” Kimball wrote.

The United States is going from "Cold War to Gold War," says Tom Collina, director of policy at Ploughshares Fund, a global security group in Washington, D.C. He notes that when Trump recently announced plans to seek an additional $54 billion in defense spending, Mick Mulvaney, director of the Office of Management and Budget, said a key priority would be “restoring our nuclear capabilities,” meaning more money for nuclear weapons.

“To be fair,” Collina adds, “Trump did not start this arms race. That dubious distinction goes to former President Obama, who set the United States on a misguided course to spend more than $1 trillion on nuclear weapons over the next three decades.”

What Can Be Done?Perry, a scientist who served as Defense Secretary under President Clinton, is hoping for a meeting with Trump and/or his national security team, including Defense Secretary James Mattis, who has said some sensible things about reducing nuclear weapons.

Senator Edward Markey of Massachusetts and Representative Ted Lieu of California, both Democrats, have proposed legislation to prohibit any president from launching a first-strike nuclear weapon without a declaration of war from Congress.

You can sign a petition supporting the Markey-Lieu bill; more than 139,000 people already have.You can join GlobalZero, the international movement for the elimination of nuclear weapons.

Yet the Pentagon is actually pressing for more nuclear weapons. In a recent report, the Defense Science Board recommended “a more flexible nuclear enterprise” that could include a “tailored nuclear option for limited use” and “lower yield, primary-only options.”

“With Trump’s call to 'expand' the U.S. nuclear arsenal, there is a growing possibility that these recommendations could turn into reality,” write Philip E. Coyle and James McKeon, analysts at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, in Politico.

Antidote to DreadThe only antidote to dread, says Kimball of the Arms Control Association, is action.

"Objectively speaking, the risk of nuclear weapons use is greater now than it has been at any time [since the end of the Cold War], though it is not as severe [as] during the worst crises of the U.S.-Soviet Cold War," Kimball, a 27-year veteran of disarmament work, told AlterNet in an email.

“It is not just the uncertainty about Trump’s impulses about nuclear weapons and his temperament, but the growing regional tensions on the Korean Peninsula, in South Asia, and with Russia that could lead to nuclear consequences,” he wrote.